Can we weather the storm? (Climate change)

Member Name: jaybee

Product:	Climate change
Date:	01/12/00 (106 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: none

Disadvantages: Could be many

Over the last couple of years we’ve seen an increase in storms, floods and severe weather in this country. But Britain isn’t alone; it would seem that over the last few years changes in the climate have seen different parts of the world hit by quite dramatic changes to their normal weather pattern.

The majority of the experts believe that this is down to global warming which is caused by the use of fossil fuels emitting greenhouse gasses, which produces the greenhouse effect.

Scientists have known about it for years, so why isn’t anything being done about it?

In 1997 an organisation sponsored by the United Nations, (IPCC) The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, drafted a document (The Kyoto Protocol) calling for dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries. This call for reductions was due to figures showing an ever-increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The IPCC called for an international effort to control the use of greenhouse gasses that can be traced to the utilisation of fossil fuels. The aim is to reduce emissions by 5.2 per cent below the 1990 levels by 2012.

Only this week saw the talks to ratify the IPCC proposals end in deadlock. There will now not be another meeting until October next year. That will be more than 4 years since the first meeting and they haven’t done a thing. The main stumbling block seems to be larger countries trying to find a cheap solution to the problem, while the emerging countries, like Brazil, Mexico, China, are seeking billions of dollars in compensation for having to try and find alternative sources of power, which they say will hold back their economic development.

The USA seem to be dragging their heels because they don’t seem to think it’s fair that they (as a developed country) have to cut emissions by a bigger margin than the developing countries. I wonder, does it have anything to do with the fa
ct that although the US has only 5% of the world population, they produce 25% of all greenhouse gasses emitted? The US emissions are double that of Japan, 3 x France, and 10 x Brazil.

The US Senate also said that to ratify such a proposal would lead to much higher fuel costs. The Senate also seems to think that any measures they take will have a minimal impact due to the fact that 130 developing nations have an exemption clause; this means their reduction levels are far below that of the US.

Figures prove that the earth’s surface is indeed warming. Only last year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that Oceanic temperature was the warmest recorded in 119 years; sea surfaces were 0.92 degrees F. above normal, with land surfaces 1.84 degrees F. above the norm. This was the 20th consecutive year that annual global mean temperatures exceeded the long-term average.

The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 30% higher than before the industrial revolution. These figures are increasing every year. The experts agree that the use of fossil fuels does lead to temperature increases. So why isn’t something positive being done to look at ways to combat this?

There was a national outcry earlier this year about the high cost of fuel (I’m sure there will be one again). I personally think that if we are to seriously tackle the problems of greenhouse gasses then we should keep the prices high, this might be a means of curbing, or controlling the emissions.

High fuel prices won’t matter much if you can’t drive your car to work because vast parts of the country are under 8 feet of water for 6-7 months of the year. This may not happen in our lifetime, but could well happen in our children’s or grandchildren’s if we don’t do something about it now.

I am not an environmentalist, I’m just somebody who is concerned that what to me seems like an issue that
could become a major problem is not being treated with the urgency it deserves.

It’s no use spending millions on flood warnings if they are going to happen regularly. We should be looking longer term. We need to know how we can combat them, or researching into ways that the climate can be controlled. That is how the money should be used.

I honestly believe that everyone should be asking the government exactly what their future plans are regarding this matter.

Mr Prescott made all the right sorts of noises after Tuesdays meeting, but maybe if the government is so committed Britain should go ahead on our own and take steps to reduce the levels of gasses ourselves.

Summary: